'We win wars'.
If you except the Falklands conflict (war was never decared) 'we haven't won a war since 1918 (1919 if you count the Third Afghan War). We 'won' the 1914-18 war because the German army over-extended itself in an attempt to destroy the British army before the Americans arrived in full strength. So it could be argued that it was the USA that won the First World War for us, as Americans have argued ever since. As for World War II, as all except those brought up exclusively on 1950s war comics know, those who won it were in fact the USA and the USSR. The UK was left exhausted and crippled, financially and industrially, but saddled with an illusion of imperial and moral greatness and power that has hindered its adjustment to reality ever since. Brexit was the last dying blow of the war comics generation (at least, that is the hope of this 82-year-old.)
Voting against a bad deal didn't have the positive result of getting a better deal last time round. The best that can be achieved is probably to run up an amendment mandating renegotiating inclusion in Erasmus and other programs.
The MPs should vote in what they believe to be the country’s best interest at this time. Voting “to send a message” is irresponsible and seems to involve the sudden loss of the ability to use language for that purpose.
The question is whether you think the constitutional fuck up that is likely to result in the break up on the U.K. in short order, is worse than no deal or not.
The MPs should vote in what they believe to be the country’s best interest at this time. Voting “to send a message” is irresponsible and seems to involve the sudden loss of the ability to use language for that purpose.
The question is whether you think the constitutional fuck up that is likely to result in the break up on the U.K. in short order, is worse than no deal or not.
Yes to the first part. To the second, No Deal gives a very similar constitutional fuck up.
Part of me hopes that Labour will vote for the Thin Deal, as being better than No Deal At All, but part of me also vaguely hopes that some Labour MPs will abstain.
If asked why I think that way, I can't really give a coherent answer - it's just a *feeling*...
the political win could easily result in plunging the country into a no-deal situation, with catastrophic effects.
There’s no “could easily” about it. That’s the only other option available.
I'm sure if push came to shove and the EU saw a realistic prospect of a closer trading relationship they could be persuaded to give the can one more kick. It's a horrible risk to take and not one I see paying off, even politically. If the risk had a decent chance of paying off and would cause the tories to lose support in the long term it might be worth trying. After all, Optimatium Partes delunda est [that's "The Conservative Party must be destroyed" rendered in cod-latin by someone with minimal knowledge of the language]
The MPs should vote in what they believe to be the country’s best interest at this time. Voting “to send a message” is irresponsible and seems to involve the sudden loss of the ability to use language for that purpose.
The question is whether you think the constitutional fuck up that is likely to result in the break up on the U.K. in short order, is worse than no deal or not.
If you're Scots or Irish, it's devoutly to be wished, for some at least. Starmer of course, is a unionist.
Apologies for triple post, was just catching up... but I wanted to ask this question:
Should Labour vote for the deal?
Kier Starmer has indicated that he will instruct Labour MPs to vote for it.
This has generated a lot of criticism in the anti-Brexit social media groups I follow. But I am not so sure it's a simple decision.
Starmer's position is that to vote against it is to risk No Deal which would be reckless. The counter argument is that voting for it gives Johnson a 'get out of jail free card' to share the blame for the disaster that is coming. This argument goes that Johnson's majority is so big, Labour can afford to take the principled stand.
I honestly don't know how to weigh those two. What say you?
AFZ
If you want the UK to leave with a deal, you vote for The Deal. Any other position means that you don't want to leave with a deal
I see that Dublin are not only funding Erasmus for N. Irish students, but EU health cards for N. Irish citizens. Lots of jokes on Twitter about Brexit producing a united Ireland. Not yet, the Irish govt will play it down.
You can positively vote for something, so a vote in favour is a vote for the deal as presented. But an abstention or vote against is much less clear - do MPs abstain or vote against because they want a different deal, if so what? Or, maybe because they consider the whole Brexit idea is so stupid that anything to sabotage it is worthwhile? Whatever way our MPs vote, we'll all have to live with the consequences.
I see that Dublin are not only funding Erasmus for N. Irish students, but EU health cards for N. Irish citizens. Lots of jokes on Twitter about Brexit producing a united Ireland. Not yet, the Irish govt will play it down.
I've been arguing this in all seriousness since Boris agreed to a customs border down the Irish Sea, if not earlier. You heard it here first.
Richard North's blog has an interesting discussion on the "double coffin lid", which means that many EU regulations are themselves derived from international treaties. An obvious example is the Paris agreement on climate change. And there are a lot of such conventions, treaties, etc.
Thus, the UK will find itself in lockstep with the EU, somewhat ironic.
I see that Dublin are not only funding Erasmus for N. Irish students, but EU health cards for N. Irish citizens. Lots of jokes on Twitter about Brexit producing a united Ireland. Not yet, the Irish govt will play it down.
I've been arguing this in all seriousness since Boris agreed to a customs border down the Irish Sea, if not earlier. You heard it here first.
Dublin will backpeddle strenuously to avoid any hint of a united Ireland. The old joke is that they can't afford it, but maybe correct.
I'm intrigued by the idea of this *border* in the Irish Sea.
Is it to be in the form of a Bigly Beautiful Trumpian Wall? Or a series of off-shore forts or castles? Or a continuous cavalcade of armed customs vessels, which would have to be fairly substantial ships?
Either way, it's to be hoped the Chumocrats don't award its construction, provision and/or staffing to yet more Chums, or it'll just be world-beatingly delayed...
I'm intrigued by the idea of this *border* in the Irish Sea.
(not sure if serious...)
NI remains part of the Single Market and Customs Union. Which means, inevitably, customs checks on traffic between NI and the rest of the UK, so notionally somewhere in the Irish Sea. I haven't really read up on it, but ISTM that living in NI will be more like living in the EU than in the UK. Especially as you can pay in euros in Derry.
Well, it was a sort of serious enquiry - I couldn't quite see how it might work, as it sounds so totally absurd (no surprise there, I guess).
I suppose being able to pay in Euros in Derry is due to the proximity of the Republic, but maybe their use could be extended to the rest of NI? That would make it even more EU-like...
The Scottish government has rented the Castle Kennedy airfield to serve as a lorry park for the ferry to NI because of the extra customs checks that will need to be conducted before boarding the ferries. I assume the Welsh government have made similar measures for Holyhead. Functionally it'll be the same as the border that runs through the English Channel and North Sea between the UK and the rest of Europe.
You can positively vote for something, so a vote in favour is a vote for the deal as presented. But an abstention or vote against is much less clear - do MPs abstain or vote against because they want a different deal, if so what? Or, maybe because they consider the whole Brexit idea is so stupid that anything to sabotage it is worthwhile? Whatever way our MPs vote, we'll all have to live with the consequences.
One of the arguments I keep hearing is that if Labour vote for the deal that would fatally compromise their ability to hold the government to account as Johnson would constantly retort "Well, you voted for it!"
I have no doubt that this is Johnson's plan; all the way through the past 4 1/2 years, fallacious arguments like this one have been used to put down opposition.
However, I don't buy that it's guaranteed to work.
As a counter example, the Tories enjoyed blaming the Labour government for the (world) financial crisis of 2008-9. In fact they still do. When challenged on this, their semi-credible argument was that the regulation of the banking sector leading up to the crisis was too lax, and this was part of the cause of the Great Financial Crisis.*
At no point from 2009 to now have the Tories been called on this with the following, very simple response: "yes but you were calling for even more lax regulations during the run up to the crash" which is demonstrably true also.
Now, the media landscape is such that this is not a fair comparison and the Brexit-supporting loony media will no doubt take BJ's side, but I don't think that means this spin war is a foregone conclusion.
The answer is: Of course we voted for your deal, your total incompetence meant that the only alternative was even worse!
I think that narrative is both good politics and good policy and happens to be 100% true.
However, I really don't know how that plays out in the country.
Weighing being partly blamed for Boris's Brexit (a political situation) against risking actual No Deal (a National crisis) is not a clear cut decision imv.
AFZ
*it probably is true to say that the under regulation of UK banks was a causative factor for the GFA, however, if you do the sums, it's a very minor factor in Britain's situation in 2010. I.e. if you hypothesise a stronger regulatory environment, the difference in the UK's position would have been very small. This is true because the direct costs of bailing out the banks in real terms is actually small. It's the consequential recession that was expensive.
The Scottish government has rented the Castle Kennedy airfield to serve as a lorry park for the ferry to NI because of the extra customs checks that will need to be conducted before boarding the ferries. I assume the Welsh government have made similar measures for Holyhead. Functionally it'll be the same as the border that runs through the English Channel and North Sea between the UK and the rest of Europe.
Nigel Farage is our resident expert on *Farage-Garages*, so he should be dispatched forthwith to make sure that all is done correctly.
It would be a great shame, would it not, were he to be irretrievably lost somewhere in Wales or Scotland.
The drop in through traffic is an obvious concomitant, given that there is lots of *non-English* sea between Ireland and Europe...why, one might almost think those pesky EU traders have something up their Sleeve...
It would be a great shame, would it not, were he to be irretrievably lost somewhere in Wales or Scotland.
No, no, no! Even if you give him a pair of concrete shoes and drop him in a deep loch north west of Lairg he would still constitute an environmental hazard. England's just going to have to stop trying to export its waste.
I'm intrigued by the idea of this *border* in the Irish Sea.
(not sure if serious...)
NI remains part of the Single Market and Customs Union. Which means, inevitably, customs checks on traffic between NI and the rest of the UK, so notionally somewhere in the Irish Sea. I haven't really read up on it, but ISTM that living in NI will be more like living in the EU than in the UK. Especially as you can pay in euros in Derry.
The upside is that a few people will get meaningful well paid jobs carrying out these checks
It would be a great shame, would it not, were he to be irretrievably lost somewhere in Wales or Scotland.
No, no, no! Even if you give him a pair of concrete shoes and drop him in a deep loch north west of Lairg he would still constitute an environmental hazard. England's just going to have to stop trying to export its waste.
I will amend that (with suitable apologies) to *irretrievably lost en route to Wales or Scotland*...
It would be a great shame, would it not, were he to be irretrievably lost somewhere in Wales or Scotland.
No, no, no! Even if you give him a pair of concrete shoes and drop him in a deep loch north west of Lairg he would still constitute an environmental hazard. England's just going to have to stop trying to export its waste.
I will amend that (with suitable apologies) to *irretrievably lost en route to Wales or Scotland*...
There are a couple of well-guarded pools near the village of Seascale in Cumbria that might serve.
The upside is that a few people will get meaningful well paid jobs carrying out these checks
That's a great idea! Let's introduce more red tape all over the place and create as many additional layers of bureaucracy as we can to provide more meaningful well paid jobs!
I'm intrigued by the idea of this *border* in the Irish Sea.
(not sure if serious...)
I haven't really read up on it, but ISTM that living in NI will be more like living in the EU than in the UK. Especially as you can pay in euros in Derry.
I think the continued provision of NHS medical and dental services in NI would make me think twice about moving south just yet, and I've a few more years NI (the other NI) contributions to make towards a UK state pension; I'll carry on renting your fantasy Belfast housing investment if that's OK
The checks on the other side of the border would need to satisfy the EU that illegal goods aren't entering the Single Market. I wouldn't expect the EU to trust the UK to conduct those checks properly, they'll be done at port of entry.
Though, the UK will be doing checks on goods imported to the UK at our ports. I expect they'll do something like develop some outsourced computer system to check scanned paperwork, with Excel playing a significant part of the system.
Voting against a bad deal didn't have the positive result of getting a better deal last time round. The best that can be achieved is probably to run up an amendment mandating renegotiating inclusion in Erasmus and other programs.
But the EU have signed. They might consider more negotiation in the future but...
The upside is that a few people will get meaningful well paid jobs carrying out these checks
That's a great idea! Let's introduce more red tape all over the place and create as many additional layers of bureaucracy as we can to provide more meaningful well paid jobs!
Well, there are all those unemployed ballerinas, baristas, etc. who could be retrained. They won't all be needed to clean the portaloos along the M20...
The upside is that a few people will get meaningful well paid jobs carrying out these checks
That's a great idea! Let's introduce more red tape all over the place and create as many additional layers of bureaucracy as we can to provide more meaningful well paid jobs!
The upside is that a few people will get meaningful well paid jobs carrying out these checks
That's a great idea! Let's introduce more red tape all over the place and create as many additional layers of bureaucracy as we can to provide more meaningful well paid jobs!
Don't blame me. Blame the EU
Let's get this straight. You want me to "blame the EU" for what you described just now as an "upside"?
Also what @alienfromzog just said. Please explain how this state of affairs is the EU's fault.
Once the UK decided to leave the Customs Union and Single Market increased customs examinations and related bureaucracy (and costs!) were inevitable, whatever the deal - or no deal. As I recall, leaving the EU was supposed to reduce bureaucracy. This was always a joke, but a good example of my Iron Law, that the more you try to reduce bureaucracy, the more you create.
Sometimes I think "Conservative" politicians, in particular, are secret lovers of bureaucracy, for all their rhetoric about "cutting red tape". I struggle to think of any major policy in the fields of education, health or social security that has not increased bureaucracy.
My Dad’s suggestion was that we let anything in, and then it’s up to the EU to check anything crossing their border that they are worried about.
I think this does not understand just-in-time supply chains, or the concerns of those xenophobes who voted for Brexit because they wanted to restrict entry to the country. (An open border in NI fucks the anti-migration agenda completely.)
The upside is that a few people will get meaningful well paid jobs carrying out these checks
That's a great idea! Let's introduce more red tape all over the place and create as many additional layers of bureaucracy as we can to provide more meaningful well paid jobs!
Don't blame me. Blame the EU
Let's get this straight. You want me to "blame the EU" for what you described just now as an "upside"?
Also what @alienfromzog just said. Please explain how this state of affairs is the EU's fault.
I don't require you to blame anyone
We don't want to do the checks. Only the EU want to do the checks
The EU has to check goods entering the EU, to check they conform with the regulations and standards that apply. That's always been the case, and thus any decision by the UK to put the country outside the customs union meant that those checks and associated paperwork would be essential. The UK government is at fault for creating all that extra paperwork and checks, and the costs to business that that creates, by deciding to leave the customs union when even the dubiously-informative 2016 vote didn't require that.
Comments
If you except the Falklands conflict (war was never decared) 'we haven't won a war since 1918 (1919 if you count the Third Afghan War). We 'won' the 1914-18 war because the German army over-extended itself in an attempt to destroy the British army before the Americans arrived in full strength. So it could be argued that it was the USA that won the First World War for us, as Americans have argued ever since. As for World War II, as all except those brought up exclusively on 1950s war comics know, those who won it were in fact the USA and the USSR. The UK was left exhausted and crippled, financially and industrially, but saddled with an illusion of imperial and moral greatness and power that has hindered its adjustment to reality ever since. Brexit was the last dying blow of the war comics generation (at least, that is the hope of this 82-year-old.)
The question is whether you think the constitutional fuck up that is likely to result in the break up on the U.K. in short order, is worse than no deal or not.
Yes to the first part. To the second, No Deal gives a very similar constitutional fuck up.
Part of me hopes that Labour will vote for the Thin Deal, as being better than No Deal At All, but part of me also vaguely hopes that some Labour MPs will abstain.
If asked why I think that way, I can't really give a coherent answer - it's just a *feeling*...
It doesn't need to. Parliamentary support is not required for the deal to be signed.
I'm sure if push came to shove and the EU saw a realistic prospect of a closer trading relationship they could be persuaded to give the can one more kick. It's a horrible risk to take and not one I see paying off, even politically. If the risk had a decent chance of paying off and would cause the tories to lose support in the long term it might be worth trying. After all, Optimatium Partes delunda est [that's "The Conservative Party must be destroyed" rendered in cod-latin by someone with minimal knowledge of the language]
If you're Scots or Irish, it's devoutly to be wished, for some at least. Starmer of course, is a unionist.
If you want the UK to leave with a deal, you vote for The Deal. Any other position means that you don't want to leave with a deal
I've been arguing this in all seriousness since Boris agreed to a customs border down the Irish Sea, if not earlier. You heard it here first.
In this case they should probably abstain; but the messaging angle has been blurred by the number of abstentions recently.
Thus, the UK will find itself in lockstep with the EU, somewhat ironic.
Dublin will backpeddle strenuously to avoid any hint of a united Ireland. The old joke is that they can't afford it, but maybe correct.
Is it to be in the form of a Bigly Beautiful Trumpian Wall? Or a series of off-shore forts or castles? Or a continuous cavalcade of armed customs vessels, which would have to be fairly substantial ships?
Either way, it's to be hoped the Chumocrats don't award its construction, provision and/or staffing to yet more Chums, or it'll just be world-beatingly delayed...
It means that you do not support leaving with a deal. That's how the media would play it.
(not sure if serious...)
NI remains part of the Single Market and Customs Union. Which means, inevitably, customs checks on traffic between NI and the rest of the UK, so notionally somewhere in the Irish Sea. I haven't really read up on it, but ISTM that living in NI will be more like living in the EU than in the UK. Especially as you can pay in euros in Derry.
I suppose being able to pay in Euros in Derry is due to the proximity of the Republic, but maybe their use could be extended to the rest of NI? That would make it even more EU-like...
What a ridiculous waste of time, money, and effort it all is. Cui bono ?
One of the arguments I keep hearing is that if Labour vote for the deal that would fatally compromise their ability to hold the government to account as Johnson would constantly retort "Well, you voted for it!"
I have no doubt that this is Johnson's plan; all the way through the past 4 1/2 years, fallacious arguments like this one have been used to put down opposition.
However, I don't buy that it's guaranteed to work.
As a counter example, the Tories enjoyed blaming the Labour government for the (world) financial crisis of 2008-9. In fact they still do. When challenged on this, their semi-credible argument was that the regulation of the banking sector leading up to the crisis was too lax, and this was part of the cause of the Great Financial Crisis.*
At no point from 2009 to now have the Tories been called on this with the following, very simple response: "yes but you were calling for even more lax regulations during the run up to the crash" which is demonstrably true also.
Now, the media landscape is such that this is not a fair comparison and the Brexit-supporting loony media will no doubt take BJ's side, but I don't think that means this spin war is a foregone conclusion.
The answer is:
Of course we voted for your deal, your total incompetence meant that the only alternative was even worse!
I think that narrative is both good politics and good policy and happens to be 100% true.
However, I really don't know how that plays out in the country.
Weighing being partly blamed for Boris's Brexit (a political situation) against risking actual No Deal (a National crisis) is not a clear cut decision imv.
AFZ
*it probably is true to say that the under regulation of UK banks was a causative factor for the GFA, however, if you do the sums, it's a very minor factor in Britain's situation in 2010. I.e. if you hypothesise a stronger regulatory environment, the difference in the UK's position would have been very small. This is true because the direct costs of bailing out the banks in real terms is actually small. It's the consequential recession that was expensive.
Oddly I find both positions easy to respect.
Don't make those car parks too big: expect a drop in through traffic via the UK to the rest of the EU.
(Ooh, here's another one).
It would be a great shame, would it not, were he to be irretrievably lost somewhere in Wales or Scotland.
The drop in through traffic is an obvious concomitant, given that there is lots of *non-English* sea between Ireland and Europe...why, one might almost think those pesky EU traders have something up their Sleeve...
No, no, no! Even if you give him a pair of concrete shoes and drop him in a deep loch north west of Lairg he would still constitute an environmental hazard. England's just going to have to stop trying to export its waste.
I will amend that (with suitable apologies) to *irretrievably lost en route to Wales or Scotland*...
There are a couple of well-guarded pools near the village of Seascale in Cumbria that might serve.
I think the continued provision of NHS medical and dental services in NI would make me think twice about moving south just yet, and I've a few more years NI (the other NI) contributions to make towards a UK state pension; I'll carry on renting your fantasy Belfast housing investment if that's OK
Yes indeed they would. Is there room (do you think) for a few more...umm...remains ?
Though, the UK will be doing checks on goods imported to the UK at our ports. I expect they'll do something like develop some outsourced computer system to check scanned paperwork, with Excel playing a significant part of the system.
But the EU have signed. They might consider more negotiation in the future but...
Yes.
How is it remotely the EU's fault?
Also what @alienfromzog just said. Please explain how this state of affairs is the EU's fault.
ISTM that this thread is becoming rather like Trump in his last days...
As in lashing out regardless of logic, common-sense etc.
Sometimes I think "Conservative" politicians, in particular, are secret lovers of bureaucracy, for all their rhetoric about "cutting red tape". I struggle to think of any major policy in the fields of education, health or social security that has not increased bureaucracy.
I think this does not understand just-in-time supply chains, or the concerns of those xenophobes who voted for Brexit because they wanted to restrict entry to the country. (An open border in NI fucks the anti-migration agenda completely.)
I don't require you to blame anyone
We don't want to do the checks. Only the EU want to do the checks